For those inspired by "old cyclists", I encourage you to look at the sport of randonneuring.
TL;DR: randonneurs ride in timed, regulated road-coarse events that start at 200 km and work up to a traditional distance of 1200 km (and beyond). It's endurance cycling and ... the kicker ... it's full of "old" people (because they seem to have the wisdom and gumption to ride smart and long). In my local club, there are definitely young riders in their 20s and 30s but the most prolific riders are over 50 and the top two are gentlemen in their 70s. "Top" as measured by most events ridden in a year and most event mileage in a year. Their average speeds put young riders to shame more often than not.
Slow and steady wins the race, for values of "race" greater than 200 km. ;-) There are local clubs all over the USA, Canada, Europe, and everywhere.
Anyways, not everyone knows about the sport of randonneuring so I just wanted to share in the context of inspiration, no-age-limits cycling -- it dates back to the 1890s and I personally think its community and values are better than regular competitive road or mountain biking, having done all of the above. Ride safe.
I heard about the Ardechoise cycling festival off the back of Robert Marchand's previous record - it's his club, they named a hill after him, etc - and got inspired to travel there and enter one of their Randonneur routes a couple of years ago. The festival has many different routes you can choose from, which overlap, and all of which are marked by the same yellow arrows on the road - which leads to fun times if you miss a turn. Mine was this one: http://www.ardechoise.com/Carte-interactive/Les-Gorges-Monta... ... 608km, but over 4 days.
As it turned out, I arrived at the top of the final hill before Saint-Félicien at the same time as a small peloton of riders and journalists surrounding an old man on an electric bike...it was Robert himself. Hope I can still be doing this at his age.
What I don't understand about this theory, is, that you would then expect athletes of all sizes to die sooner... Certainly the heart of an athlete has gone a lifetime working harder than a non athlete... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something about the height/age correlation...
My guess, is your misunderstanding lies in biology in general. There is no constant maximum heart effort per lifetime. The heart is a muscle, if muscles are not used they become weak, conversely when muscles are used they become stronger and can grow (see: weight lifting). Also there is more to staying alive than a heart that beats.
That may make sense, but appears to be mostly wrong.
The linked paper doesn't draw conclusions (it's just a survey paper), but does point to studies showing a positive correlation between cancer, rapid growth, and height.
The age-group was created as a result of his attempt. He is the only one. It's preetty fuckin' baller of him. I bet this record is gonna stand for a while.
It's baller, but I wish they would focus on the fact that a 105-year-old is doing what he's doing, not focusing on a "record" that's a 1/1 attempt. Add enough caveats and everyone's a record-holder in something.
Kudos to Ed for finding a passion like this in his life. I hope some film maker gets a chance to interview him, and to capture some footage of his feats.
I'd like to point out that he is riding upright on a standard road bike with virtually no aero equipment (except his loose skin suit). I imagine at his age a time trial position would destroy his back and neck after an hour (if he could even get in the position) so, to me, that makes his distance that much more impressive. I bet he could tack on 1-2 more miles if were fully decked out in TT equipment, maybe even more.
At 15mph, there's not that much to be gained by tucking into an aero position, I'd be surprised if he could go 10% faster (or farther) just by tucking into an aero position and wearing more aero equipment.
Assuming Marchand (52kg) rode a UCI weight limit bike (6.8kg), and assuming he rode on the hoods for the whole hour (the position shown in the photos), and keeping all other assumptions default, his 14mph ride required about 69W of power.
With the optimized aero bars setting, which is approximately the best aerodynamics possible using the relaxed post-2014 rules, the same power allows a speed of 15.15mph. Not quite 10% improvement but not far off.
Yes but it's worth noting that for a person of any age it's harder to generate the same power in a fully aero position because you are choking the engine!
In my experience, the tucked TT position is just as much about generating power as it is being aero. Granted time trials aren't my strongest event when bike racing, being in an aggressive position seated far more forward on the saddle allows me to generate more down force – at least it feels that way. In two similar events a few years ago I went from ~24mph to ~26mph by just adding aero bars to my road bike, and further improvements when I got a full TT bike. I know there are a lot of factors (wind, road conditions, etc.), but sitting in the aero bars really feel far more powerful than sitting upright on the hoods or even in the drops.
Outliers (or, are they?) like this guy make me question my beliefs about nutrition and fitness. Two days back, my uncle (who is pushing 93) was telling my mom that he's NOW finding it a tad difficult to do his daily cycle rides of 10 kms. All his life he's smoked a cigar everyday, had a couple of glasses of Scotch and basically eaten whatever he's wished.
And here I am, struggling with early metabolic syndrome despite eating low-carb, doing a fair bit of HIIT + lifting and feeling guilty every time I have a drink.
Cycling takes a long time, so it burns a lot of calories. It's no coincidence that a common club ride destination will be a nice cake shop and that half the riders will be skinny older guys.
I do have one and I enjoy my daily commutes on it :)
But, given the negligible effect it's had on my health, I want to refine my original comment to make it clear that I don't imply causation between cycling and burning calories. Clearly, I need to make additional changes.
Join a cycling club, it's not just about the Sunday rides. You'll find a few people you click with more and your schedules match nice enough for you to get in miles of your choosing.
If you're doing HIIT-type stuff, I'd recommend finding a serious lung-buster of a hilly loop near you and playing cat and mouse with your mates. One person at the bottom, give a head start of a certain distance (based on your respective abilities) to the rest of the group, and then hit the climb. The leaders need to get to the top of the hill without being caught by the chasers (not beaten to the top, just caught). The caught leaders join the chasers for the next hill and so on, until you can go no more. Kinda helps to break the monotony of riding the same (albeit convenient) routes over and over and helps everyone push each other forward.
Where's your uncle? Our elderly relatives in countryside always outlive us the city-dwellers. I live in a very lucky part of my city where I'm both between two sizable forests and close to all means of commute, thus I breathe in the best air of the city. Most city-dwellers world-wide though, breathe in shit air. There's no London fog anymore, yes, but instead millions of cars, and tens of millions of people together. I think that plays an important role, to have good air around.
He lives in a fairly traffic-dense urban locality. He did spend a large amount (~10-15 years) of his life living in the hills when he was in the civil services.
Good way to learn is to get a bicycle (borrow maybe?), remove pedals and cruise to build up confidence. Lower the seat, start at a flat ground and just push yourself (as kids do). Then you can move on a slight downhill to gain some speed and learn to operate the brakes. Once that becomes easy you can move onto pedaling.. which is cycling!
You should see my three-year-old on his coaster bike. I can no longer keep up with him, even running. I haven't transitioned him to pedals yet, but I have to feel there's something to the idea that the balance is the hard part and once you're confident in that you can pedal while you do it.
Edit: He became proficient with it slightly after his second birthday. He walked fairly late, too, after 16 months or so. I don't think he could have learned to pedal this early, but he's got the balance, steering, and speed control (braking and accelerating as needed) out of the way. Even knows how to ring a bell when passing people on jogging trails.
I learned to skateboard when I was 22. At first I thought it was impossible, but after about 10 hours of concerted practice it felt natural. Give it a try and don't give up.
His diet that consists mainly of fruits and vegetables along with his lean body are likely major factors that contribute to his youth like health at 105.
We do not really know why. It's like trying to figure out why somebody won the lotto. Statistically speaking, somebody will. Same with longevity, statistically speaking, a few will make it pass 100.
Edit: I found this about Jeanne Louise Calment from Arles, France who lived to 122:
>>An interesting side question is how Jeanne Louise Calment managed to achieve such an advanced age? She smoked until the age of 117 and reportedly ate a couple of pounds of chocolate a week. She also rode her bike until the age of 100 and lived on her own until 110. Go figure.<<
You'd think the smoking and sugar from all that chocolate would cancel out the benefits of riding her bicycle.
I think I saw a variation on this article that said he started cycling regularly when he was 68.
Our city has been taking steps to make bicycle commuting more friendly, but they haven't gone far enough. I really hope we end this absurdity with having too many cars; they are ruining everywhere nice.
I like to adapt food writer Michael Pollan's quote [1] about industrial agriculture to describe cars: by relying on automobiles to get around, we've taken one solution (walking or biking to get somewhere and get exercise at the same time) and divided it into two problems (being sedentary and creating pollution).
My biggest issue is lack of physical barriers between bicyclists and cars. I'm too afraid to take a bike because of it. I already don't trust other drivers when in a car. I also dislike it when riding a car because you frequently get weird issues around turn lanes etc that are shared with bikes that behave completely differently from cars.
Being afraid is natural, but it's not unduly dangerous to ride on city streets, even in large cities. Just look up the statistics for cycling injuries/deaths in your city. You are very, very unlikely to suffer a major injury.
Having said that, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. First, you want to be predictable. That generally means following all the traffic rules. When riding in stop and go traffic, keep your place and don't pass on the right. When turning left, take the whole lane (or walk your bike across the intersection if you are nervous to do that). Realise that you have really good power to weight ratio, so there is no reason at all not to use a whole lane at low speeds. Don't ride on sidewalks. Don't dart in and out of parked cars, etc. Keep your gears in good condition and make sure you are in an appropriate gear to accelerate when you need to.
The biggest danger in a city is riding beside large vehicles (like trucks or busses). Avoid riding beside them, even in multi-lane situations -- either ride in front, or slow down and ride behind them. Keep enough space between you and them that they can see you in the mirror (there is a blind spot directly behind the vehicle). Normal cars are not a problem, it's just vehicles that make wide turns.
The next biggest problem is people opening doors when exiting a parked car. Generally speaking, take a lane when passing a parked car. If you can't do that (because of traffic), slow down to the point where you can stop if required.
After that, the worst thing is usually stupid drivers that overtake you and immediately make a right hand turn. Not much you can do about that, so be sure that you are ready to brake when you get to intersections or entrance ways. Make sure your brakes are in good condition and learn how to brake effectively (front brake is where almost all your braking power comes from, shift your weight back to stop from going over your handle bars). You can brake considerably faster than a car, so it's not actually that dangerous if you are paying attention.
Most important is to practice in order to get your confidence up. Make a very short circuit that you can ride every day. Maybe walk it a few times first so that you are super comfortable with it. Ride at whatever speed you are comfortable with and don't feel bad if you want to pull over and take a break. It won't take you long until you can try riding in other places.
but it's not unduly dangerous to ride on city streets, even in large cities.
I love cycling (I cycle a lot), but unfortunately this isn't true. In the US, you are roughly twice as likely to die as in a car[1]. It is much, much, much safer than motorcycling! (Somewhat old data, though)
Double a really small number is still a really small number. From that link, I get 9.2 fatalities per 100 million person trips for a car, 13.7 fatalities per 100 million person trips for walking and 21.0 fatalities per 100 million person trips for cycling.
If you ride your bike 3 times a day, every day for 70 years, you have about a 1.6% chance of dying. This is not unduly dangerous.
Comparing fatalities based on distance traveled obscures the real risks, especially if you do that country-wide: Highways and other long-distances roads are a comparatively safe environment for cars. Accidents are comparatively rare, but often fatal. City traffic differs: speed is in general lower (< 50 km/h), distances traveled shorter and accidents will often not result in injuries for vehicle occupants.
Injuries for cyclists thus are far more likely. Even collisions at lower speed that basically leave a car dented and the occupants uninjured will result in injuries for cyclists: The classic dooring accident, run over by a turning car, etc. Even overtaking the cyclist with too little safety distance can lead to a fatal accident [1]
The stats in Berlin (2015) indicate that while cyclists are involved in about 4% of all accidents, they make up 21% of persons killed (pedestrians are even worse off: 1.33% involvement, but roughly 40% of all persons killed). They also make up more than 30% of all injured (30% of major injuries). Pedestrians make up for 13% of the injuries (24% of major injuries). So the group of soft targets that is involved in roughly 5% of accidents suffers 60% of all fatalities, 54% of nmajor injuries and 43% of all injuries.[2]
The data that was linked to was fatalities per 100 million trips. Unless I've missed something, that's what you want. I'm not going to say that cycling is as safe as not cycling, but it's still quite a safe activity. Your odds of getting seriously injured are quite small.
I wonder if horizontal bikes couldn't be awesome for elders trying to get healthy again. Avoids dangerous falls, probably a bit less demanding for your body. Just not where there are cars.
If he's been doing serious road biking since that age it's probably not something that he's doing on regular streets. Or, he's not just hopping on a bike and taking a leisurely ride down the street for groceries anyway.
>If he's been doing serious road biking since that age it's probably not something that he's doing on regular streets.
Of course he rides on regular streets, he's French. Seeing an elderly woman riding to the shops or a group of lycra-clad pensioners attacking a mountain pass is perfectly normal there.
It is a peculiarly American belief that bicycles are somehow incompatible with motor vehicles. Cyclists need no special facilities, just sane traffic laws that are actively enforced.
You can drive to Plano, Texas and find packs of bikers attacking the open road as well. That's not a video of Marchand in lycra speeding down a Paris boulevard.
Is it a particularly European belief that Americans are unenlightened savages? I mean, we are, but you don't have to assume it.
I don't believe that Americans are unenlightened savages. I believe that they have a very limited cycling culture, due largely to the dominance of car culture. America was fortunate enough to be the richest country on earth during the 20th century, so it developed a car culture sooner and more pervasively than any other country. At a time when cars were an unaffordable luxury for most Europeans, many Americans regarded cars as a basic necessity.
The public discourse about cycling in America is dominated by myths, because very few Americans have practical experience of regular cycling. Those who do cycle tend to be self-taught, because of the limited availability of cycle training and the lack of a strong tradition of club cycling. America is having to rebuild a culture of cycling from scratch, for no other reason than the ubiquity of the motorcar.
Yes, America has a "limited" cycling culture, but we're a nation of 300 million people; within that there are pockets of very real cycling culture informed by decades of experience from elsewhere.
Some of us do cycle, too. There are miles and miles of good trails running through some cities you wouldn't expect.
I dunno, I've ridden the roads in Plano before. The fact that most roads are multi-lane definitely make things more amicable to biking there since cars can move around cyclists. In denser urban areas (yes, yes, Plano is semi-urban with all its corporate infrastructure) where the lights are denser and the roads have fewer (or one!) lanes it is much more difficult.
Also, more pertinent to Plano, what if you want to replace your car entirely? Grocery stores are still pretty spaced out and you are SoL if you want to get into Dallas proper! The DART is incredibly slow, so that's out, and biking from Plano to a night on the town with your friends is Deep Ellum or Greenville Ave is a tall, dangerous order.
What basis do you have for either of those claims? What sort of irregular streets do you think "serious" road bikers use, and why do you think serious road bikers don't also use a bike for shopping?
Aged 35 he finished seventh in the Grand Prix des Nations in 1946.[3] He returned to cycling in 1978[2] and continued training after his 100th birthday.
My point is that the guy has very clearly been training and seriously cycling for a long time. While you can do it on normal city streets, you are often served better to do that on dedicated bike paths or on the open road.
You can reduce the impact of cars all you want and even make your city bike friendly but that's not going to change your ability to really train. It's not crazy to think that his health benefits are from this elevated level of training and not just leisurely cycling.
I do. Dress warm and live in a place that aggressively salts when possible. While road salt is ineffective in extreme cold, snowfalls are pretty rare at those temperatures too. I can generally bike right through the winter here in Hamilton, Canada.
I really hope we can end this absurdity with prioritizing slow methods of transportation. Cycling instead of driving costs an extra hour per day of commute time, and I am already living in the most premium (read: close to work) location I can afford. Time that I depend on for higher-intensity exercise and more thoughtful dinner prep.
My grandpa is 96 years old and never owned a car. He rides his bike a few miles almost daily. His diet includes a lot of pork, some fish, veggies, and a crazy amount of bread. He has been lean all his life. He worked hard in the farm, most of his food was from it. So no proceeded food, a lot of physical activities and low stress. Genetics may have something to do with it, my ancestors old passed away around 100 years of age, but the lifestyle is a major factor.
Indeed, bread is a processed food. Would you elaborate on your comment? I can understand it in one of two ways: it's pedantic with nothing more implied; it's implying there's no meaningful distinction between bread and, say, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, Doritos, or TV dinners. Or do you mean something else?
it it all necessary, but without great genes to provide rock solid joints, cardiovascular system and lack of debiliating diseases ala alzheimer or Parkinson it wouldn't be possible.
For every guy like him, there are thousands and thousands who exercise almost same, have almost as good diet and die in +- normal age, many even earlier (ie cancer, weak heart and so on).
At the end it's all about managing probabilities without knowing 100% picture of your health state
Yes longevity is basically not taking stupid risks and genetic luck on your side. Exercise and eating healthy is about making the longevity you have enjoyable.
Exercise and eating healthy is a bit more important that that - unless you are including in "stupid risks" eating unhealthily and/or being sedentary (long term).
One useful way to think about it is that genetics mostly gives you an upper bound on longevity. How you live your life can shorten that substantially.
Yes not caring for your health is a stupid risk, no one can reasonably claim the dangers are unknown. Not caring for yourself can shorten your life however caring for yourself will not extend it, it simply means you are not actively trying to end it.
TL;DR: randonneurs ride in timed, regulated road-coarse events that start at 200 km and work up to a traditional distance of 1200 km (and beyond). It's endurance cycling and ... the kicker ... it's full of "old" people (because they seem to have the wisdom and gumption to ride smart and long). In my local club, there are definitely young riders in their 20s and 30s but the most prolific riders are over 50 and the top two are gentlemen in their 70s. "Top" as measured by most events ridden in a year and most event mileage in a year. Their average speeds put young riders to shame more often than not.
Slow and steady wins the race, for values of "race" greater than 200 km. ;-) There are local clubs all over the USA, Canada, Europe, and everywhere.
Anyways, not everyone knows about the sport of randonneuring so I just wanted to share in the context of inspiration, no-age-limits cycling -- it dates back to the 1890s and I personally think its community and values are better than regular competitive road or mountain biking, having done all of the above. Ride safe.